Wedding Photography

[Bob Hubbard]

My wife and I spent the last week in the Bay area of California attending a friends wedding. They had their own hired photographer, but we brought our gear with us to cover what we could as an extra gift.

I shot primarily with the Canon XSI and available light only. Used on camera flash as fill on a few shots, but mostly avoided it. Susan had the 50D and extras as she did some portrait work in "No Mans Land", ie: the bridal suite.

Here's a few shots from the event. Love some feedback as it's the first wedding I shot at.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

.

 

[Carol]

Lovely! The lighting looks a bit harsh with the first four, but I have no idea what to suggest to get around that. My shots like that I end up processing the hell out of, to the point where they do not look realistic....but its tougher to do that with people. Buildings and waterfalls don't care

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It was about 1130 when they started the ceremony, and I struggle at times to get the balance right. Shot at ISO400 for most of the outdoor shots to try and bring up some of the highlights and shadows to allow balancing.

 

[ShelleyK]

For a first wedding Bob, you did remarkably well! I wish you would have shot ISO 100 with an external flash though, it would have given a MUCH better fill light! A noon wedding is VERY tough to shoot because of the suns positioning.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Some of the shots show blown highlights in the whites. It's always difficult to shoot a wedding, because people wear black and white clothing, which represents more dynamic range that most digital cameras can handle. One of the reasons why the Fuji S5 is still considered a classic for weddings; it offers increased dynamic range.

Did you shoot in RAW? This can offer a bit more dynamic range than shooting in JPG, although of course it is slower and offers fewer shots per card, plus the necessary post-processing work later.

Between the dark blacks and the bright whites, one has to make a decision to either let the blacks block up or let the whites blow out. I tend towards retaining detail in the whites and letting the blacks do what they will, but everyone is different.

If you're willing to work in film, Kodak Portra NC is usually a good choice; it offers the most latitude of any color print film (more than digital) and it scans well too.

Don't forget to use the polarizing filter when working outdoors with people. It can cut glare off clothing, buttons, everything but metallic objects, and glare can increase the perception of blown-out highlights.

Weddings are really hard work. Good job!

 

[Carol]

Get a good polarizing filter if you do. I bought a cheap one from Best Buy...big mistake. Nothing like a $12 filter to kill the quality of an image from a $1500 camera...LOL.

 

[MBuzzy]

We actually just bought a new polarizing filter for about $140....WELL worth it. The thing even repels dust and finger prints. It is AMAZING....put my finger right in the middle (while in the store....not the one I bought either) and NO PRINT. I was amazed....

Bill's right, we have the same problem with shooting white horses, you either blow out the whites or oddly enough, affect the background - particularly the sand and footing. I know that my wife prefers to shoot darker and lighten in post processing.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I shot in jpg mostly as I was taking a lot of shots and only had 4gb cards with me. Couple shots, wish I'd switched to raw for, .

XSI only goes to 200ISO. It's a decent walk about camera, but limited under some conditions.

Susan also had the filters in her bag in 'No Mans Land' and as she was part of the wedding party, I didn't feel it was right to interrupt to snag it. Next time, we'll pack better. We're also looking at picking up another 50D and 580ii so we can both work optimally.

 

[Sukerkin]

Some nice shots regardless of the technical obstacles, Bob.

The ones of the bride in profile are smashing, particularly the sixth one down - it's a cliche but she has that regal beauty about her that a newly-made wife is reputed to have .

 

[jks9199]

Some nice shots regardless of the technical obstacles, Bob.

The ones of the bride in profile are smashing, particularly the sixth one down - it's a cliche but she has that regal beauty about her that a newly-made wife is reputed to have .

I agree. I like the profile ones; they're atypical takes on the routine poses. I'm guessing that you took 'em while the hired gun was taking the traditional frontal views? (I'm assuming coordination there, of course!)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I shot in jpg mostly as I was taking a lot of shots and only had 4gb cards with me. Couple shots, wish I'd switched to raw for, .

XSI only goes to 200ISO. It's a decent walk about camera, but limited under some conditions.

ISO isn't that much of a problem unless you're trying to shoot at a higher ISO than the camera can handle. You can create low ISO with a faster shutter speed or higher number f-stop (as I'm sure you're aware), or if that isn't feasible, an ND filter. A polarizer can also be used as a makeshift ND, since it drops a few stops of exposure.

Susan also had the filters in her bag in 'No Mans Land' and as she was part of the wedding party, I didn't feel it was right to interrupt to snag it. Next time, we'll pack better. We're also looking at picking up another 50D and 580ii so we can both work optimally.

I always start with a polarizing filter on my camera, take it off and put it in the shirt pocket if I find I don't need or want it. I also carry a small manual-focus 50mm f/1.7 or 50mm f/1.4 lens (I shoot Pentax, which makes that cheap and easy for me) for sudden low-light situations or where I want to do the whole out-of-focus background thing without getting macro or all jiggy in post-production work (which I suck at anyway).

My pockets often bulge a bit; spare battery, memory card, and filter at the very least must be on me at all times, along with one fast manual-focus prime lens. I also prefer to carry an expo-disc for setting white balance when in wonky lighting, even outdoors. Direct sunlight under leafy green trees can lead to some funky colors depending on your camera's ability to properly set WB. Of course, RAW overcomes that difficulty without worrying about WB, but requires post-processing too.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I agree. I like the profile ones; they're atypical takes on the routine poses. I'm guessing that you took 'em while the hired gun was taking the traditional frontal views? (I'm assuming coordination there, of course!)

The hired gun's entire technique was "stand there" clickyclickyclicky "ok, done". From what I heard, he managed to piss off a number of folks. He also had no control over the scene, to the extent that the bride asked my wife to take some family shots. I mostly wandered and shot what struck me as interesting, using as a base idea some of the modeling work I've done, wedding shots I've seen plus some ideas from the photos Shelley did at my wedding, and a few "hey, that might be a nice memory" that popped into my head.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So far I'm getting alot of positive feedback. So much so, that I'm considering seriously adding weddings to my roster. Now, here I obviously missed certain 'can't miss' shots, but it wasn't my goal to get those either as I was a guest and really the only people I knew there were my wife and the bride. So I tried to stay out of the way of the paid photographer, who was really an anti social sort. My thought is, add the traditional shots to the mix, and debug the image quality issues, and I've got a chance?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So far I'm getting alot of positive feedback. So much so, that I'm considering seriously adding weddings to my roster. Now, here I obviously missed certain 'can't miss' shots, but it wasn't my goal to get those either as I was a guest and really the only people I knew there were my wife and the bride. So I tried to stay out of the way of the paid photographer, who was really an anti social sort. My thought is, add the traditional shots to the mix, and debug the image quality issues, and I've got a chance?

I think wedding photography is a dying profession, but I'm sure it has some life in it yet. Part of the reason for the decline is part-time friends of the happy couple (like you, hehehe) and the growing perception that professional-looking wedding photography just isn't that hard to do.

Also consider that a wedding, from start to finish is sometimes 8 hours, and you can typically do one a week (Saturdays are traditional), so if you charged $1,000 to shoot a wedding, you'd gross $52K USD a year; chump change. You burn up equipment so you have to keep new stock. You have to have good transportation so you don't break down and miss a wedding. You have to have liability insurance in case some guest trips over your gear bag or a ladder or lights. You must have a second shooter and backup equipment; you can't have a camera or flash crap out on you. You must have a data tank to dump images to while you're shooting; you can't have a bad data card. Weddings can't be reshot; you get it right or you get your *@( sued off. Check Google also; it's fairly common for wedding photographers to get more and more behind on the post-processing work until they get a) sued or b) sent to prison for fraud. No fooling; it happens quite a bit.

I have shot a few weddings for pay. It's back-breaking work that I would not do on purpose again unless I needed it to keep body and soul together. From disappointed couples who think they're more attractive than they are to ugly venues to evil ex-married step-parents of the couple who won't stand near each other for the bride-zilla's 'shot list' even though she says she wants them, to Uncle Bob with his camera who knows more than I do and wants to show me (hehehe) to the mindless drunks wandering into the shots or trying to tell me about the cameras they used to own, it got so old so quickly.

But you can make a small buck doing it. Just get ready for a lot of pain.

You know my friend Jackie Buck. She does it great and makes it look easy. So it can be done. But man oh man is it hard work.

EDIT: Oh, FYI - The wedding photography business? It's about BUSINESS not about PHOTOGRAPHY. Seriously. A good businessperson who is an average photographer will do fine and even have a good rep. A great businessperson who has a lousy eye will also tend to do well. A great photographer who can't be a businessperson will fail hard. If you have both talents, you'll do well. But business is much more important in this biz than photography skills.

 

[zDom]

Pretty good job, Bob.

I second the advice regarding dropping that ISO. Going to get richer results, and with that great natural lighting, why not?


I've only shot a couple weddings. I prefer not to do weddings.

I shot my cousin's wedding when I got my first digital SLR just to get some practice in. It ended up being a good thing I did: somehow the professional photographer they hired LOST all the images she had taken

(Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ... how does a professional photographer screw the pooch THAT hard on a job???)

so what I took ended up being the ONLY pics they had. Fortunately, I shot a LOT, and got all the frontals the pro was getting, too.

 

[zDom]

My thought is, add the traditional shots to the mix, and debug the image quality issues, and I've got a chance?

Yep. Do fill flash outdoor weddings, though, to take out face shadows.

And know/learn all the traditional shots that the wedding party may forget (if they don't have someone on the ball making sure the pose for them) such as

cutting the wedding cake, feeding each other a slice
arms entwined drinking
first dance
dance with daddy

etc. etc. etc. ....

and family reactions! Try to get a few shots of EVERYBODY who attends in there at some time during the reception so they have a shot of Aunt Mildred at the wedding, for example, even if they forget to ask.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

(Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ... how does a professional photographer screw the pooch THAT hard on a job???)

Happens a lot:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q="wedding+photographer"+sued&cf=all

http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q="wedding photographer" sued&cf=all&sa=N&tab=nw

Also a lot of crooks and photographers who just get overwhelmed and never get around to finishing the work:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="wedding+photographer+sentenced"&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I think part of the problem is that it seems so easy until you do it. Lots of people know how to take good photos. Not a lot of people know how to run a successful business. And although that is true for many professions, wedding photography is one of the few where you don't get a 'do over' if you mess it up.

 

[jks9199]

The hired gun's entire technique was "stand there" clickyclickyclicky "ok, done". From what I heard, he managed to piss off a number of folks. He also had no control over the scene, to the extent that the bride asked my wife to take some family shots. I mostly wandered and shot what struck me as interesting, using as a base idea some of the modeling work I've done, wedding shots I've seen plus some ideas from the photos Shelley did at my wedding, and a few "hey, that might be a nice memory" that popped into my head.

That's a shame. We were lucky; my wife found a very good wedding photographer who not only worked with us and developed good chemistry but also worked with the church. Then gave us all the photos on a CD, in a matter of days, and a release for getting them printed. (And all that was done before the photographer went on vacation and before we moved my wife halfway across the country -- literally!) Anybody in the Kansas City area & in the market for a wedding photographer -- PM me for a referral!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, we're aiming to launch this fall. Gives us a little time to get a few pieces of gear and refine our technique. Will probably aim for smaller weddings initially and work as a team. Waiting to hear back from our insurance guy on what if any additional coverage we need.